confluence_list_attachments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'list attachments' and 'Primitive' – which hints at a low-level read operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination behavior, or what the response contains. The description does not mention cursor as a pagination token, which is a behavioral detail an agent would need.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear usage tip. The description earns its place with minimal redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination works (cursor, limit), or how the filters interact. While it names the key filters, it omits essential context like response format and pagination semantics, so an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It names 'filename, media type, status, and cursor filters' but does not explain what each filter does, nor does it mention limit, max_chars, or page_id semantics. Calling 'cursor' a 'filter' is ambiguous – it is typically a pagination token, not a filter. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct request.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('attachments for a page'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling confluence_get_page_context by naming the alternative. The agent can clearly tell this is a scoped, low-level listing operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance is given: 'For attachments together with the page body and comments, prefer confluence_get_page_context.' This sets a clear condition for when to use the alternative, and the 'Primitive' tag implies use when only attachments are needed. No other tool is mentioned, but this is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.